If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[TLK Valentine]

It would depend entirely on his intended audience.
If his writings were intended for a "new market" then
simply rewriting the current writings and adding his
personal recollections is an option for a non-fiction
work of writing.

Works for fiction, too.

But if he was writing to an established
group of followers, then he may or may not choose
to include what Mark had already written.

Sometimes I include what you have written into my
posts verbatim. Or I may paraphrase it.

The problem is that Matthew didn't add "personal recollections." He added things that he didn't witness, and couldn't have possibly witnessed... the Birth narrative is chock full of good examples.

So your rationalization falls flat.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

And how many errors crept in as the bibles were copied is something always debated amongst bible scholars, and whilst reluctant to edit there are points where changes are argued to have been made, for example 1 John 5:7-8. A support for the trinity that many biblical scholars believe is not original to the gospel, see link for an article about this.
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tool...-reference-to-the-trinity-added-in-1-john-5-7

My understanding is that the scribes who wrote the Biblical texts went to extraordinary lengths to ensure the accuracy of the copied texts. As such, it has been estimated that the New Testament texts that we have are about 99.5% accurate and the remaining 0.5% in question does not affect a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Works for fiction, too.



The problem is that Matthew didn't add "personal recollections." He added things that he didn't witness, and couldn't have possibly witnessed... the Birth narrative is chock full of good examples.

So your rationalization falls flat.

What was Matthew supposed to have witnessed that he couldn't have done?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

So I've heard.

If you deny Him in this life, you'll find you're in big trouble in the next. I hope you find Him while you still can. Once you pass through the second death to the other side and stand before God's judgement it will be too late.

 

[Anguspure]

One more retrospective reading of Jesus into the Old Testament. Another explanation is that whoever wrote John felt free enough to shift the crucifixion to suit his idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. The last lamb that needs sacrificing.

Jesus walked the earth as a Rabbi who followed the law, what do you expect the context of His life would be except in the Old Testament?
John was certainly thinking that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, and John the Baptist proclaimed him to be as such.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you deny Him in this life, you'll find you're in big trouble in the next. I hope you find Him while you still can. Once you pass through the second death to the other side and stand before God's judgement it will be too late.

What is it with Christians and their schadenfreude dogma?

I'll take my chances and bet we'll both in up in the same "place," when we're dead.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What was Matthew supposed to have witnessed that he couldn't have done?

Before we go any further, are we in agreement that the the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you deny Him in this life, you'll find you're in big trouble in the next.

No, we won't.

I hope you find Him while you still can. Once you pass through the second death to the other side and stand before God's judgement it will be too late.

Do you usually witness to unbelievers like this? Has it ever actually worked?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A single continent or large island surrounded by water would be all that was needed to support life in the time of Noah since the earth’s population was still relatively small. If all life on the planet lived in one local area, then only that local area would need to be flooded.
.

The continents have been in their basic present form for all the time humanity has been in existence. Life has been in all the globe for all the time humanity has been in existence.

 

[Anguspure]

What is it with Christians and their schadenfreude dogma?

I'll take my chances and bet we'll both in up in the same "place," when we're dead.

Ever heard of Pascals wager? Christians actually care that other people might end up on the eternal destruction side of the outcome, even if those people don't care themselves.

 

[Anguspure]

The continents have been in their basic present form for all the time humanity has been in existence. Life has been in all the globe for all the time humanity has been in existence.

There is this: Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.;
and then there is the question of where the flood waters subsided to after the flood (into the ocean basins formed at the same time?), the environmental consideration that made rainbows a post deluvian phenomina, and another though I had about the land area required to support mega fauna.
I would suggest that the land area is significantly less and different from that originally created.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ever heard of Pascals wager?

Yep, and it's a sucker's bet.

 

[Anguspure]

Yep, and it's a sucker's bet.

Not schadenfreude to be concerned about the outcome on behalf of someone such as yourself. It is, on the other hand, schadenfreude to not warn you that the proverbial bus is about to run you over and enjoy the spectacle. But this is not in keeping with knowledge of the God who laid down His life for you, is it?
Anyway you are saved from the negative outcome of Pascals wager it is up to you whether you fling yourself away from Him or not.

 

[Isaacsname]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

God Bless!

That's a good question, indeed

Maybe God has something up his sleeve

 

[SkyWriting]

If no one is suggesting another way for it to be true, you can simply accept it as literally true. It's easier to understand that way.

I find that you can't even move forward in your understanding untill
you accept it true on faith. Then the curtains open.

 

[SkyWriting]

Works for fiction, too.

Examples?

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is that Matthew didn't add "personal recollections." He added things that he didn't witness, and couldn't have possibly witnessed... the Birth narrative is chock full of good examples. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
So your rationalization falls flat.

That doesn't change my explanation of what happened one tittle.

 

[ScottA]

Yes the finite reality is what we know, the infinite is what we are to learn.

What does that mean, my Father only owned the clothes he died in.


Yes.

Now here's the problem. You want us to think by shrinking our knowledge, we grow it. Finite knowledge is what we know, I know the existence of rocks that prove the Earth wasn't made as the bible says. You deny this, therefore your finite knowledge is smaller.

I believe infinite knowledge exists, we just have to keep learning. You believe infinite means we stop learning. Let's start by you showing how your knowledge is growing like the majority of us.

Don't assume to know what I know, deny, believe, etc.. It would be better if you just ask.

The existence of rocks...what?

All matter is energy. The bible is indeed a reasonable explanation of how the earth was created: Creation is expended energy. Matter is energy. That's kind of what it says. And...that being said...knowledge that is limited to the matter created by energy, is finite. It's only "part"...the finished part.

Your definition of finite and infinite is not accurate. "Finite" simply means "limited", while "infinite" means "unlimited." By definition, to keep learning (as you say) is an admission of limited knowledge. To be perfectly clear, I am trying to share "infinite" knowledge...not "growing" knowledge, but "complete" knowledge.

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't assume to know what I know, deny, believe, etc.. It would be better if you just ask.

The existence of rocks...what?

All matter is energy. The bible is indeed a reasonable explanation of how the earth was created: Creation is expended energy. Matter is energy. That's kind of what it says. And...that being said...knowledge that is limited to the matter created by energy, is finite. It's only "part"...the finished part.

Your definition of finite and infinite is not accurate. "Finite" simply means "limited", while "infinite" means "unlimited." By definition, to keep learning (as you say) is an admission of limited knowledge. To be perfectly clear, I am trying to share "infinite" knowledge...not "growing" knowledge, but "complete" knowledge.

How can you share something you don't posses?

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence doesn't matter because there is no evidence to falsify a literal Genesis.

Interpretations may be falsified, but not a literal Genesis.

What features would a fossil need in order to falsify a literal Genesis?

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a literal Genesis?

What shared genetic markers would falsify a literal Genesis?

Or will any evidence, no matter what it is, be considered consistent with a literal Genesis? Does the evidence even matter?